The National Crime Agency v Namli & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Hakki Yaman Namli, a Turkish resident, controlled companies that deposited significant sums in a Coutts & Co account, which the NCA claimed were proceeds of crime. Males J ruled that most funds resulted from fraudulent activities and ordered their recovery. Mr. Namli's appeal was stayed, and the NCA appealed the decision on remaining funds. Citing the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the court found all funds, including those from loans, to be recoverable. The decision highlighted principles on recoverable property and the impact of unlawful conduct, misrepresentation, and causation under criminal and civil law.
Judgment
LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE:
Hakki Yaman Namli (“Mr Namli”), who is ordinarily resident in Turkey, owns and controls First Merchant Bank OSH Ltd (“FMB”), a company incorporated in the part of Cyprus known as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. He also owns and controls Topinvest Holding International Ltd (“Topinvest”), a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Between 12 March 1999 and 4 February 2005 sums were credited to Topinvest’s account with Coutts & Co such that at the date of trial the amount in the account was about US $ 7 million. The Serious Organised Crime Agency (“SOCA”), now named the National Crime Agency (“NCA”), sought a recovery order in respect of the monies in that account on the grounds that they were the proceeds of crime.
Males J held that most of them were and made a recovery order accordingly. Mr Namli appealed from that decision with the permission of the judge, but that appeal has been stayed because he has failed to put up the security required of him. The appeal before us is the appeal of the NCA in relation to that part of the funds in the account in respect of which the judge did not make a recovery order.
Males J found that Mr Namli was a serial liar and an international fraudster and that monies that went into the Topinvest account (and the profits accruing thereto) were the proceeds of his criminal conduct. The following credits were made to the Topinvest account:
Number Date of receipt Details 1 12.3.99 $ 1 million paid from FMB’s account at ABN- AMRO, New York 2 14.12.01 $ 1 million received from Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt by order of Libra Bank Bucharest (another bank owned and controlled by Mr Namli) 3 6.3.02 $ 1.2 million received from an account at Libra Bank in the name of United Systems Ltd, a BVI company owned and controlled by Mr Namli 4 16.9.02 $ 550,000 received from an unspecified account at Libra Bank 5 13.4.04 $ 697,500 received from an investment account of Mr Namli at Deutsche Bank, Geneva 6 4.2.05 $ 1.41 million received from an investment account at a Luxembourg bank held in the name of Stuart & Associates Corporation, another entity owned and controlled by Mr Namli
The judge considered six sets of fraudulent activity, which were labelled as follows: (i) the German fraud; (ii) the English frauds; (iii) the Lepkanich fraud; (iv) the Turkish loan backs; (v) the Bankhouse fraud; and (vi) the Laconia fraud.
The German fraud
On 15 October 1991 a civil judgment was obtained